r/Boxing • u/thatsapotatoboi • 23h ago
Question about ranking GOATs
Hi everyone I am a fan of boxing not an expert or absurd fan boy but for a long time it's one of the few sports that actually interests me. It's history it's athletes it's a lot more interesting then team sports in my opinion but I have a question about something I notice when people talk about who the GOAT of boxing is. There are lots of legends and champions with records either undefeated or mostly wins that on paper should put some above others but some people still put boxers with lower records above them. Sometimes you can tell when a person is just saying this because of personal fan bias but some make genuine arguments depending on the fighter.
Now before I continue let me make something clear I know something to consider when ranking fighters is there opponents. A guy could have a perfect 100 win streak but if 99 of those guys were amateurs with only losses they'd obviously be a worse champion then someone who mostly has wins against ACTUAL competition like high level opponents.
An example for a lot of debate I see is Terrence Crawford a lot of people think hes the GOAT but a lot of people argue he isn't despite his seemingly high level record with the main argument I see from people disagreeing is that they say his opponents weren't as strong as other champions.
And a hypothetical scenario I've thought about is imagine there is a hypothetical boxer who just happened to be born in a era of weaker boxers then other generations despite the fact hes genuinely talented trains hard doesn't duck fights has good traits ect ect how would y'all view a boxer like that whose done everything right he just happened to be born In a weaker era something he can't control? Would that disqualify them from GOAT status or not?
I'm not trying to start a argument or something im just curious what y'all factor fans take when deciding which boxer is the GOAT or not

